Well, there needs to be American jurisdiction, obviously, but my point is that it applies to immigration policies too. There's a reason why Trump's been insisting that his travel ban isn't a Muslim ban.

It actually doesn't, the president has legal precedence to block any group of people attempting to entering the nation, including those that belong to a single ideology. (Jews learned that the hard way in the early 1900s) People outside of the US are not covered by the first amendment.

It also isn't a Muslim ban, since it doesn't ban all Muslim nations (it doesn't ban Indonesia, for example). The insistence that it's a Muslim ban is a meme, just like "muh Russia conspiracy".

If it was as clear-cut as you're saying, there wouldn't be an ongoing court case about this to begin with. The historical precedents you're referring to are many decades old and have since been replaced by anti-discrimination laws and broader constitutional protections.

Not only that but the court is using Trump's own words as evidence for the underlying motive of the travel ban. I mean, when a man says "Ban all Muslims" over and over in the campaign, it's not gonna go unnoticed by the courts when they get a "Ban people from these countries (that are mostly Muslim)".

It's like going on facebook, ranting and raving about how you wanna rob houses for crack money then going to a locksmith and asking to learn the trade.Or wanting to join the police academy.

Yeah okay Rushy, not all Nazi's are bad and the Koran is the book of rape, you keep it simple.

Are you really incapable of seeing the clash in logic? Telling me "we shouldn't ban muslims because not all of them kill people" is no different than saying "we shouldn't ban Nazis because not all of them kill people". If your idea of what makes an ideology bad is whether or not it kills people then I'm not sure how else to explain this.

If the Nazis had claimed Hitler was a prophet, would you agree that they simply must be allowed to follow Hitler's religion?

I’m not seeing any logic.

I’m either seeing someone who is intentionally trying to start an argument by comparing apples and pears (odds on), or someone that mired in prejudice that little in the way of logic will suffice.

I don’t know if you have ever met any Muslims, but living where I do there are lots, and they are much like the rest of humanity, if they called all Christians genocidal, baby killers based on Samuel 15:3 and Psalm 137 I would think that they were doing something like the above.

I know Nazis that are pretty nice too, therefore Nazism is okay, right? None of the Nazis I've spoken to have ever actually killed anyone. I know you're needlessly prejudiced against them, but not all Nazis are "holocaust everyone!". In fact, I'm pretty sure by criticizing Nazism, Europe has simply caused it to become more extreme. If you didn't criticize them so much, maybe they wouldn't be so angry.

If it was as clear-cut as you're saying, there wouldn't be an ongoing court case about this to begin with. The historical precedents you're referring to are many decades old and have since been replaced by anti-discrimination laws and broader constitutional protections.

The court case is nothing more than activist judges trying to hinder the current administration. The travel ban will eventually be held up, it'll just run through dozens of speed bumps because "hurr durr da durnald dumpf can't ban people!"

Yeah okay Rushy, not all Nazi's are bad and the Koran is the book of rape, you keep it simple.

Are you really incapable of seeing the clash in logic? Telling me "we shouldn't ban muslims because not all of them kill people" is no different than saying "we shouldn't ban Nazis because not all of them kill people". If your idea of what makes an ideology bad is whether or not it kills people then I'm not sure how else to explain this.

If the Nazis had claimed Hitler was a prophet, would you agree that they simply must be allowed to follow Hitler's religion?

I’m not seeing any logic.

I’m either seeing someone who is intentionally trying to start an argument by comparing apples and pears (odds on), or someone that mired in prejudice that little in the way of logic will suffice.

I don’t know if you have ever met any Muslims, but living where I do there are lots, and they are much like the rest of humanity, if they called all Christians genocidal, baby killers based on Samuel 15:3 and Psalm 137 I would think that they were doing something like the above.

You're right that not all Muslims are baby-killers or somesuch, but you do seem to be ignoring that you can attribute some pretty heinous beliefs to majority of muslims, such as death for apostates or criminalizing homosexuality. This is a problem, that gets glossed over frequently. I don't think a ban on Muslim immigration or banning a belief system is a solution, but the problem still needs to be dealt with.

Let's ban all religions that would have homosexuality be a punishable offense. Totally a Muslim thing, lol

Did I say a religion should be banned? Oh no wait, I said that a ban wasn't a solution. Ok good. I also called out adherrents rather than the source material because only an idiot would say, "Their holy book says it so obvi they believe it." Thanks for playing though Roundy. Leave the trolling to the professionals.

This is why one is on to ban and the other isn't. For some reason we hold religion higher than political ideology on the scale of freedom yet they're almost identical in practice.

In Islam there is no difference between religion and politics. Your religious affiliation is literally your political ideology. That's why the Quran outlines a very specific kind of government that all Muslims are commanded by God to work towards. The fact that you'd list Islam as something separate from political ideology tells me you know very little about Islam. After the founding of the religion, it immediately began conquering the Middle East and North Africa, very violently, by the way. Gee, that almost kind of sounds like WWII, except Islam won their takeover.

The only difference between Hitler and Mohammad was that Hitler didn't claim he was a prophet of god. A mistake on his part, obviously, as he should of known all the cool warmongers claim that "God wills it".

I also called out adherrents rather than the source material because only an idiot would say, "Their holy book says it so obvi they believe it." Thanks for playing though Roundy. Leave the trolling to the professionals.

If there are parts of a religion's holy book that you have to think "well I certainly hope they don't actually believe this!" then maybe calling their religion into question shouldn't be considered a bad thing.

This is why one is on to ban and the other isn't. For some reason we hold religion higher than political ideology on the scale of freedom yet they're almost identical in practice.

In Islam there is no difference between religion and politics. Your religious affiliation is literally your political ideology. That's why the Quran outlines a very specific kind of government that all Muslims are commanded by God to work towards. The fact that you'd list Islam as something separate from political ideology tells me you know very little about Islam. After the founding of the religion, it immediately began conquering the Middle East and North Africa, very violently, by the way. Gee, that almost kind of sounds like WWII, except Islam won their takeover.

The only difference between Hitler and Mohammad was that Hitler didn't claim he was a prophet of god. A mistake on his part, obviously, as he should of known all the cool warmongers claim that "God wills it".

Yes, I am aware of Sharia law. However, Islam is still considered a religion first and foremost by the world. Moreover, the Quran is more of a collection of sayings and less laws. Sharia law was developed AFTER Mohammad's death and was collected from his life experiences, his interpretations of God's word, and what he did. So if he liked cats, well... cats would be part of Sharia law. Just like how Jesus's life and actions form the basis of morality in Christianity.

And like Christianity, a ruling body was setup to write the laws and rules. In fact, both do it via proxy. The ruling bodies in Saudi Arabia and Iran are kept in power by the Islamic church but are not, themselves, the heads of the Islamic church.

The difference is not if one group has a political ideology or not (they all do once you get past the faith), it's what the ideology is based on.If it's faith then Religion.If it's not then "Political Ideology"

Islam is based off the belief that God backs their political ideology.Nazisim is based off their belief that they're the best and that belief has no other backing.

Of course, I'm trying to find actual bans on being a nazi.Several countries have bans on the symbols and salutes (with some exceptions) and the sales of nazi memorabilia is illegal but I can't find any country that outright bans the nazi party or makes it illegal to BE a nazi.

Yes, I am aware of Sharia law. However, Islam is still considered a religion first and foremost by the world. Moreover, the Quran is more of a collection of sayings and less laws. Sharia law was developed AFTER Mohammad's death and was collected from his life experiences, his interpretations of God's word, and what he did. So if he liked cats, well... cats would be part of Sharia law. Just like how Jesus's life and actions form the basis of morality in Christianity.

And like Christianity, a ruling body was setup to write the laws and rules. In fact, both do it via proxy. The ruling bodies in Saudi Arabia and Iran are kept in power by the Islamic church but are not, themselves, the heads of the Islamic church.

The difference is not if one group has a political ideology or not (they all do once you get past the faith), it's what the ideology is based on.If it's faith then Religion.If it's not then "Political Ideology"

Islam is based off the belief that God backs their political ideology.Nazisim is based off their belief that they're the best and that belief has no other backing.

Of course, I'm trying to find actual bans on being a nazi.Several countries have bans on the symbols and salutes (with some exceptions) and the sales of nazi memorabilia is illegal but I can't find any country that outright bans the nazi party or makes it illegal to BE a nazi.

For starter's, it's just "Sharia". Saying "Sharia law" is redundant, in the same way that you shouldn't say "ATM machine". Sharia means "law".

Secondly, Islam is a religion founded by a literal warmonger. Mohammad married a wealthy widow and then later began using his wealth to preach his madness. Then after convincing even crazier wealthy men to follow him, he gathered up an army and began invading cities throughout Arabia. His book is nothing but ramblings that consist of morale enforcers for an army. Kill people who aren't in your army, don't kill people who are in it. That's a good strategy, as shown by the fact that the Muslims conquered vast swathes of land. It also means they're still doing it and once again Europe is slow to react.

Also, no, "being" a Nazi is not illegal because you can't prove thought crimes (yet!). However, any item or communication that is Nazi in origin is considered hate speech in most EU nations and it will get you jail time. I'm not arguing that being a Nazi should be legal, but I am arguing that if you have the balls to ban Nazism then you should have the balls to ban Muslims too. The difference being that Nazis don't run into arenas and blow up on command. The terrorists are winning because the EU is obviously too scared to bother doing anything against the people performing this nonsense.

I know Nazis that are pretty nice too, therefore Nazism is okay, right? None of the Nazis I've spoken to have ever actually killed anyone. I know you're needlessly prejudiced against them, but not all Nazis are "holocaust everyone!". In fact, I'm pretty sure by criticizing Nazism, Europe has simply caused it to become more extreme. If you didn't criticize them so much, maybe they wouldn't be so angry.

God you talk some rubbish! There are some bans on Hitler worshipping style Nazi groups in some European countries, usually those that suffered liquidation events (how much more extreme do you want), Nazi memorabilia isn't banned in Britain although it is frowned upon, and you still haven't given any of the other “bans” that Europe is supposedly full of.And if you believe the bull you wrote above, then by your own admission, banning would make them more extreme.

Quote from: Rushy link

If there are parts of a religion's holy book that you have to think "well I certainly hope they don't actually believe this!" then maybe calling their religion into question shouldn't be considered a bad thing.

Christianity then!

All religions are retarded, and Islam in its extreme is undoubtedly the worst, but if we insist that those in our country abide by our laws, and realise an us and them mentality is divisive and counterproductive, work with those (the majority in my experience) who want peace, it's far likelier we will reach a peaceful solution than fucking up their countries.

Incidentally, if Trump is so set on getting at Radical Muslims why was he sucking up to the Saudi's, the heart of the Wahhabi movement and the source of most if not all radicalism, a faith that many Islamic scholars (see Al-Azhar university) regularly denounce as a vile sect and a Satanic faith.

Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, the unknown, and the incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science. Robert Green Ingersoll

God you talk some rubbish! There are some bans on Hitler worshipping style Nazi groups in some European countries, usually those that suffered liquidation events (how much more extreme do you want), Nazi memorabilia isn't banned in Britain although it is frowned upon, and you still haven't given any of the other “bans” that Europe is supposedly full of.And if you believe the bull you wrote above, then by your own admission, banning would make them more extreme.

Alright, I give up, there must be some kind of language barrier going on. I feel like I'm trying to have a discussion with Inti-Lite. There's no way things like "banning would make them more extreme" flew over your head this easily unless there's a language issue.

All religions are retarded, and Islam in its extreme is undoubtedly the worst, but if we insist that those in our country abide by our laws, and realise an us and them mentality is divisive and counterproductive, work with those (the majority in my experience) who want peace, it's far likelier we will reach a peaceful solution than fucking up their countries.

I'm just pointing out the eventual pointlessness of your governments banning ideologies they don't like. Europe can't decide whether it likes America's free speech anything-goes argument but also thinks banning Islam is "islamaphobic" so they've taken a shitty route that involves banning some people but not others. Have fun when Muslims eventually get into political power and use legal precedence to ban things they don't like (and they aren't afraid to do it!). By choosing to ban ideologies based on feels, you've allowed any future government to do the same, and I have a strong feeling that future governments in the EU are going to feel that Judaism and Christianity are bad.

Incidentally, if Trump is so set on getting at Radical Muslims why was he sucking up to the Saudi's, the heart of the Wahhabi movement and the source of most if not all radicalism, a faith that many Islamic scholars (see Al-Azhar university) regularly denounce as a vile sect and a Satanic faith.

any item or communication that is Nazi in origin is considered hate speech in most EU nations and it will get you jail time. I'm not arguing that being a Nazi should be legal, but I am arguing that if you have the balls to ban Nazism then you should have the balls to ban Muslims too.

Again, because I think the point was missed. The UK does not have a ban on Naziism, neither does the EU - individual countries like Germany have.

any item or communication that is Nazi in origin is considered hate speech in most EU nations and it will get you jail time. I'm not arguing that being a Nazi should be legal, but I am arguing that if you have the balls to ban Nazism then you should have the balls to ban Muslims too.

Again, because I think the point was missed. The UK does not have a ban on Naziism, neither does the EU - individual countries like Germany have.

So if I displayed Nazi paraphernalia outside my home in London, it would garner absolutely no attention from authorities?

Just clarify your position for me Rushy, as you seem to be for Trumps ban on Islam, whilst praising the right of your redneck buddies to wave swastika flags, but you think that Britain/Europe is soft on Islam (it isn’t) but overly harsh on Nazi’s (we aren’t).

While you are doing that I will attempt to put you right on a few things that Fox has misinformed you on.

Britain has 71 proscribed organisations, 14 are paramilitary organisation from Northern Ireland from the troubles there.

1 is a far-right group called National Action, who promote anti-Semitic, homophobic violence, and race-war and was only put on in 2016 after it praised the shooting and stabbing to death of Labour politician Jo Cox by a supporter, calling her a traitor.

In-line with a lot of Americans who rarely question their Hollywood education, you have the idea that Europe is soft, forgetting that some of those films you have seen, were based here, (and unlike the films they weren’t all won by Yanks) you also forget that terrorism isn’t new to us and that it has never prevailed.

Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, the unknown, and the incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science. Robert Green Ingersoll

Just clarify your position for me Rushy, as you seem to be for Trumps ban on Islam, whilst praising the right of your redneck buddies to wave swastika flags, but you think that Britain/Europe is soft on Islam (it isn’t) but overly harsh on Nazi’s (we aren’t).

Let me state this plainly as I can:

You either don't ban ANY hateful ideology.

Or you ban ALL OF THEM.

Many European nations have chosen a "middle ground" where they pick and choose which ones they don't like. That's a very bad long term strategy that's going to result in problems down the road. The American view of freedom of speech is the most logical one. You allow all speech, no matter what it is, because anything else is allowing your government to choose what speech is okay and what speech is not okay, which is absolutely unacceptable.

Additionally, there's no difference between Nazism and Islam in an ideological sense. They are both in-group, out-group ideologies strongly based on racial and tribal senses. Saying "Islam is okay because not all Muslims kill people" is not a defense when Islam establishes an obvious out-group (and encourages discrimination against that out-group). That discrimination doesn't always take the form of blowing people up, and I'm not sure why you think it simply has to do that.